Connecticut Local Politics brought to my attention that there is a bill proposed in Hartford that would make the Insurance Commissioner an elected official starting in 2010, rather than being an official appointed by the governor.
The text of the latest version of the bill is available at the Connecticut General Assembly website. (Note: The link is a substitute version, newer than the one quoted by CLP).
Aside from the shift from appointment to election, the bill includes a requirement that entities regulated by the commissioner (along with officials of those entities) not be permitted to make campaign contributions to candidates for the office.
A couple of thoughts on my part:
First, I have mixed thoughts about whether the Commissioner should be an appointed or an elected official. Either method of selecting a Commissioner has its pros and cons about identifying qualified candidates and the risk of the position being a political football rather than actually managing the insurance marketplace.
Second, I am uncomfortable with the prohibition on campaign contributions from the industry. I fear that such a restriction would create an imbalanced playing field, potentially opening the door to the Commissioner to being beholden to consumer advocates at the expense of a healthy insurance marketplace. One only needs to look to California, Florida, or Massachusetts for examples of consumer advocacy run amok when it comes to insurance.
Third, also on the campaign contribution clause — with the insurance industry being so big in the state, wouldn’t such language make it a bit difficult for anyone to raise campaign funds in this state?
True, the idea of an election focusing on issues rather than advertising budgets is intriguing, but it seems a little naïve in this day and age.